Agreed, but standard here just means a standard presentation in Physics education.All the major textbooks use Copenhagen. Standard QM is the Copenhagen interpretation.
Sure, but the presence in textbooks is a stronger case for a consensus regarding what to teach students, it may not represent a consensus regarding a preference for truth or correctness.Yes, except for Copenhagen or whatever one wishes to call what is in the textbooks.
It's an imperfect analogy, but one might argue that Newtonian mechanics is the "right" version of mechanics, because it is found in many more introductory textbooks (and therefore more textbooks, since most texts are introductory.) However, it is completely equivalent to Lagrangian mechanics and Hamiltonian mechanics. The consensus to teach Newtonian mechanics first (which I believe is correct) is based more on its usefulness with the math skills of most students in these classes rather than some sense that it is more correct than Lagrangian or Hamiltonian.
I would not make any more from the lack of alternate QM interpretations in the textbooks than I'd make from the piles and piles of Physics texts that ignore Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics.